Posted on 12/29/2008 11:11:17 PM PST by goldstategop
n Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)
In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.
Why?
Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.
1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.
2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.
What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?
This brings us to the next reasons.
3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”
4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.
5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.
6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it?
7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.
8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.
The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”
That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.
If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.
Re your church class experience: At one point I was reading "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell. Farrell relates how he had large audiences for his seminars when he would focus on how men needed to fix things about themselves to make the relationship work. Women would drag their guys to his seminars. Then at one point he changed his format to pointing out how men AND women needed to keep things going. Women stopped dragging their men to his seminars. Follow the money -- women will drag men to seminars that bash men, but men will not drag women to seminars that bash women (and more importantly, women will not go to such, or will walk out in a huff)
If the wife is not satisfied, then shouldn't she talk to her husband, and then "train" him? I would think such skills could only be developed through experience (and suggest that they were a slut), watching porn (better than being a slut but not by much), or natural ability. I'm a virgin myself, so I can't say anything from person experience. I think I'd like to get married some day. I am apprehensive about such a proposition, though. It could be the worst decision of my life. Or the best. Who knows but God.
Check your freepmail
Yes, that seems accurate.
Why is that difference important? Both of them are things that are needed in a good relationship. For both you'll sometimes have one partner less ready to "get involved".
Sure, but that doesn’t change my statement about “how women are”...There are alot of little things that will get a much better result than telling a woman “it’s your duty..”
I don't disagree with you there. Your advice, in most circumstances, would probably lead to a better outcome for the husband. (I suspect Mr. Prager's article is about those circumstances where your approach would *not* work but he doesn't make that clear in the article).
And likewise, women who desire more communication or more emotional intimacy from their husbands could probably obtain it pretty easily by following the advice of Mr. Prager. Or, they could get him to open up by talking about things *he's* interested in, or doing a number of other things.
I just find it curious that women are not often given this advice when they aren't getting what they want from their husbands. And when this advice is given, many people would dismiss it as sexist, chauvinistic garbage. Instead the basic assumption is that a husband *must* do these things, even when he doesn't really feel like it, "just because".
And yet when husbands may not be getting the things they want- like sexual intimacy - the conventional wisdom is either that he doesn't even deserve those things in the first place, or that if he wants them he needs to do certain things that his wife wants.
Again, that's not to say a man won't be better off by making those small gestures for his wife. And of course, any good husband should be doing those things anyway. I just wonder why it is that meeting a wife's needs is supposed to be automatic, while meeting the husband's needs is supposed to be something that is "earned".
Sarah’s pro-life and gun principles are solid, I agree. She is also quite charismatic, likeable and can rally the base.
My point was more in response to another’s assertion that the GOP does not objectify women. Sarah’s resume was never examined. Just now we are beginning to do that. She was immediately praised or hated for her looks, body, sex appeal, etc. It still happens today on the Palin threads. Rumor is even her husband Todd is getting sick of all the guys lusting after his wife. The original poster made a valid point IMO.
I forgot to add, if Sarah Palin looked like Helen Thomas none of us would be talking about her today.
Can we clone you?
Oh, I don’t know ... we talk about Helen Thomas ;-).
I have it on good authority: Nope.
great post!
And as I relate it to my own life?
I cannot think of one instance where I had to say to myself “oh geez - well I guess it’s my obligation”
“Why is that difference important?”
Because ears pretty much work the same with men and women.
Sexual response works quite differently.
” I just wonder why it is that meeting a wife’s needs is supposed to be automatic, while meeting the husband’s needs is supposed to be something that is “earned”.”
I’m not sure what you mean here.
I don’t think it is an “either” “or” situation.
I think they both can get what they want and what they need, if they simply start thinking about one another.
A woman who feels her husband isn’t listening to her SHOULD stop and ask herself if she is hindering communication.
A man who isn’t getting any might want to consider his approach a little better.
Win - win
some people are destined to be miserable and walk thru life essentially dead...
enjoy your 7 Blessings and show em you love em every day...best example you can give em...
“But I notice you don’t mention premarital sex.”
Can’t mention everything all the time.
“That’s one place men need to get their heads on straight. Men want to test-drive women before they marry them. And if the women don’t measure up, then out they go.”
Actually, it’s even worse than that a lot of the time. Some men “test drive” lots of women they have no intention of marrying.
“Granted, women are as responsible for this as men.”
No, I don’t think so.
“But the reality is that most men today wouldn’ marry a woman who wouldn’t sleep with them beforehand.”
That’s because they wouldn’t have a fourth date with a woman who hadn’t slept with them by the third.
“but I guess you think that’s okay.”
I’d be absolutely fascinated to hear what it was that led you to make that supposition.
“the party is going to continue to shrink until it gets fully behind people like Sarah Palin”
The party is going to shrink until we get leftists out of all positions that allow them to indoctrinate the young.
“Better yet, the party could promote women who don’t look like Sarah Palin but might be a little more articulate and a little less cowed by the media.”
You’re on the wrong track there. What the ‘Cuda has is the same thing Ronaldus Magnus had—authenticity. And if she appeared “cowed” by the media, that was only because McLame’s lackeys were reining her in.
“Single women might even be an option. Granted, there aren’t many single conservative women, but there are some.”
Women leaders are as scarce as hen’s teeth. Ain’t been but three in my lifetime. The pubbies can go wth the ‘Cuda, or go down to dusty death.
“You really should read your statements before posting. This line is just creepy.”
It’s creepy that you think a tradition dating back thousands of years is creepy. These things become traditions because they have better outcomes than the alternatives.
This was a good response. Don’t disagree with you on much. Still think Sarah could use some coaching — from a conservative woman, preferably. And I still think the GOP should work a little harder to promote women. If they had more practice, the mistakes made with Palin wouldn’t have occurred.
“I just don’t buy it. If a guy can’t keep some degree of his woman’s passion, then nothing is pretty much what he deserves.”
The problem with your logic is that you are presuming honesty. You are presuming that the problem is that the man is an inattentive or inept lover, but not considering that the woman may be playing cynical power games.
“Anything else is more akin to making a travesty of the institution.”
One of the most important facets of the institution is that sexual needs are met within it. When one party refuses to live up to his or her end of the bargain, the consequences are rarely good—for the family or for society.
“My goodness (chuckle,) this old Grandma hit your hot button.”
The attack on the family by the left is indeed one of my hot buttons. Putative conservatives who have accepted elements of this attack are another.
“You might look up “female hysteria.” All sorts of psychological and female symptoms were included under this Victorian diagnosis.”
We spent some time on this when I was studying psychology at university back in the early 1970s. We also studied the problems with their methodology, their small, non-representative samples, their prejudicial assumptions, and other problems that make this work...well, either bilgewater or hogwash, depending on your point of view.
In the 1960s and 1970s, those portions which supported feminist dogma were touted, those that militated against it, ignored.
“You must be a young person and did not live through the sexual revelations of the Kinsey Report and the book “What You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask.”
What amused me most about that era was women burning their bras, laboring under the misapprehension that men wanted women to hide their breasts. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they figured out, “Hey, all we’re doing here is giving the phallocrat oppressors a better look at our goodies.”
Oh, and if you could get a girl ranting on about how a promiscuous male was admired as a “swordsman” while a promiscuous female was denigrated as a slut, the fornication was a done deal. All you had to do at that point was undress.
Yes, I lived through the time of the dissolution of morals, largely under the influence of the fraudulent pervert, Kinsey. I expect to do a couple of eons in Purgatory as a result, *if* I’m lucky.
“Hysterectomies” are called that for a reason. This was the surgical response to psychological and other female maladies - e.g “hysteria.” If women acted out, they might become a candidate for this treatment.
I remember my mother (now in her 90s) talking to me after she read about “What you always wanted to know...” She had no idea that such things were possible. It was a new concept at the time that women might experience the big O like men. There were even magazine articles on the discovery. Things are quite different now.
At least for women, I would bet that this is not a part of history to which we would wish to return. I would not call it cultural degredation that we no longer yank out a woman’s reproductive organs when they behave as men would not wish. Nor do I call the expectations of sexual pleasure by both parties degrading. I am sure that the Taliban would not agree, but hey this is America.
I don’t think it is an “either” “or” situation. I think they both can get what they want and what they need, if they simply start thinking about one another.
I don't agree with the first statement- I believe men and women approach communication differently. But there's no need to quibble over the details since you don't seem to buy into the double-standard I was describing... and it's that double-standard that I object to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.